Registered Member

Ok, Well there was the Ukrainian desire for independence, and the widespread anger with Stalins genocide by famine a few years earlier which could have made them willing collaborators of the invading Germans.In fact the 14th SS Wafen Grenadier Division contained a high percentage of Ukrainians. It was the harsh treatment of the Ukrainians by the Germans ( a lot were deported for slave labor) that lost them the initial support.
Although their population was too small be of any significance, the same could be said of the Crimean Tartars.

If I dare to interpret the two examples that you brought up (in reality, there are more such examples, such as the Baltic states), they all demonstrated what I have said.

In the same way as the purge, the collaborators and the cause of them weakened USSR, but because of their insignificant numbers (even in Ukraine with a large population, the collaborators are mostly from the west, the east identified themselves more as Russian), they didn't make a meaningful unti-faction within USSR. Their effect is similar to the unti-Hitler Wehrmacht officers, just a bit bigger in numbers.

One example is that Khrushchev, an Ukrainian was crucial in maintaining the USSR control on Ukraine and latter succeeded Stalin (a Georgian some of whose ethnical brothers also collaborated with Germany).

The core of the issue is that within USSR there was no organized and unified political/ethnical faction that wanted a German win except some unorganized people who assisted Germany out of their resentment to USSR (some of their grievance are surely justified). However, without a clear vision those collaboration with the Nazi simply won't make any difference.

It is interesting that the victors never need to justify the truth. When I went to grade school (primary and secondary education) in Argentina, this is the version we were taught. Which is very different from the version taught in Europe and America.

This includes all the offers of peace sent by the Germans to the English and French. Also, if England and France had a defense treaty with Poland, why was war not declared on the Russians when they invaded Poland?

I’m not saying that everything the German’s did during the war was pure and honorable. You have to put things in context and realize that there is always another side to a story. Just like in a divorce, if you ask the man and the woman, you will get to completely different stories.

Registered Member

Now, the question is, what happen if Hitler didn't attack Soviet Union at the first place? What will happen? They won? Or destroyed from within? Or attacked by Soviet Union instead? What would happen if the Third Reign didn't attack the Soviet Union?

There must be a reason why they attacked Soviet Union in the first place. Maybe because Hitler had an obligation to destroy the communist (as he promised in his propaganda?), or maybe to prevent Soviet Union from attacked German first? I dunno, as I'm not an historian. So, what happen if they didn't attack Soviet?

Now, the question is, what happen if Hitler didn't attack Soviet Union at the first place? What will happen? They won? Or destroyed from within? Or attacked by Soviet Union instead? What would happen if the Third Reign didn't attack the Soviet Union?

There must be a reason why they attacked Soviet Union in the first place. Maybe because Hitler had an obligation to destroy the communist (as he promised in his propaganda?), or maybe to prevent Soviet Union from attacked German first? I dunno, as I'm not an historian. So, what happen if they didn't attack Soviet?

Good question! There are two line of thought regarding this and will give a short simplified answer skipping from A to Z.

The first is that the Soviet Union was beginning to modernize its equipment and had instituted conscription. Many of these “new” forces had been placed along the just created frontier between Germany and the Soviet Union (the partitioned Poland). The attack against the Soviet Union by German forces could be seen as a preemptive “first strike” similar to the Israeli “first strike” against Arab forces in 1967.

The second line of thinking could be as follows. Germany defeated the Polish forces in 22 days and then the French Army in six weeks. The defeat of France in six week was something that Germany could not do in four years of war between 1914 and 1918. In other words they got cocky and believed that they could defeat the Soviet Union, which recently fought against the small 100,000 man Finish Army and suffered 150,000 dead plus wounded. The Germans believed that with the Soviets poor performance in Finland and the purges of the Officer Corps by Stalin, that the Soviet Union was in no shape to conduct a serious long term war.

The line of thinking selected depends on where you were educated. Europe and North America, or another part of the world.

Regardless the attack on the Soviet Union was inevitable. The big mistake made by Hitler was to declare war on the United States (after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor). This brought in the incredible industrial might of America to bear down on them in the form of lend lease to the Soviets and direct assistance and forces with the English.

Without the Americans the war against England would have been a footnote in history and the war with the Soviets “could” have been winnable. Of course if the Germans lost in this scenario every nation (in Europe) but England would have been under Soviet control.

Registered Member

It is interesting that the victors never need to justify the truth. When I went to grade school (primary and secondary education) in Argentina, this is the version we were taught. Which is very different from the version taught in Europe and America.

This includes all the offers of peace sent by the Germans to the English and French. Also, if England and France had a defense treaty with Poland, why was war not declared on the Russians when they invaded Poland?

I’m not saying that everything the German’s did during the war was pure and honorable. You have to put things in context and realize that there is always another side to a story. Just like in a divorce, if you ask the man and the woman, you will get to completely different stories.

Registered Member

No, what is nauseating is the complete whitewashing of Hitler's and the Nazis' crimes against humanity. They were FORCED to act this way by everybody except themselves according to this wretched video. If you look at the comments made by the Youtuber who put this video up, it is VERY clear he is a Holocaust-denier and probably some kind of closet Neo-Nazi anti-Semite white supremacist.

Registered Member

Hitler's war on the Soviet Union was paradoxically the result of both an underestimation of soviet war waging potential, and an overestimation of soviet war waging potential.

Hitler thought the Soviet Union would be threateningly strong in 3-5 years where as the Soviet Union was weak enough to be easily defeated in 1941.

Hitler overestimated how powerful the Soviet Union could become in 3-5 years if left unmolested to build up her war industry and armament, in pretty much the same way Wilhelmina Germany overestimated the Russian ability to acquire overwhelming war industry and military strength after 1914. History shows the fighting power of the Undistracted German Wehrmacht in a defensive war was sufficient to stave off any likely soviet offensive power.

At the same time Hitler grossly underestimated the defensive power of the Soviet Union in 1941. Yes, Germany came very close to defeating the Soviet Union. But that is only because German fighting power also exceeded Hitler's expectations by a big margin. But the Wehrmacht failed to defeat the Soviet Union because soviet material strength surpassed German intelligence estimate by an even larger margin.

About Us

SinoDefenceForum.com community offers the place to discuss strategic Chinese defense, military, military hardware, defence technology and geopolitical issues! We pride ourselves on offering unbiased, mature, and critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds.